What we have accomplished in Iraq

[FancaR]

Originally Posted by formula154

FancaR says that USA helped Georgia when Russia attacked them. So what? At the start of WWII Russia was allied with Hitler. After Hitler attacked Russia they switched sides and became allies with the Allied forces. At the end of WWII the Russians enslaved Eastern Europe for 50 years. They tried to put nuke's in Cuba. They supplied SAM's to North Viet Nam all through the war. They invaded Afghanistan them selves. The reason they turned Europe loose and got out of Afghanistan is because their empire collapsed. Now FancaR wants to act like the USA isn't righteous and holy enough. We aren't righteous and holy enough compared to whom, Russia? A Russian complaining that the USA isn't righteous and holy enough is ,as we in America say, the pot calling the kettle black. The pot and the kettle are both black. For one to call the other black is hypocrisy.
Gooooood day!!!!!!

The American telecommunication equipment has failed still before Russia has struck blow to the Georgian bases! It has died during blow Georgian volley fire on a Tskhinvali city of South Ossetia

I see that you know about history with Georgia from the TV too.
Ok, i repeat again:
Georgia the FIRST has attacked South Ossetia. And then Already Russian armies have crushed in ashes all Georgian Army on all Georgian territory. Russian Have stolen together with other trophies from Georgia five American cars "hummer". The most ridiculous that the Pentagon has demanded from Russia to compensate their cost )) lol

first read II World War history, and in general all history of the twentieth century (only not in the American textbook, and, for example in English or the French book) and after that make statements like these.

I did not hear for a long time such delirium. The United States were at war as soon as Hitler has attacked the Soviet union? The United States have entered the Second World War on December, 7th, 1941 when the military base in Pearl Harbour has been attacked by the Japanese planes. But Hitler attacked SU in 22.06.41. And were not on the first fronts of war, protecting only interests of the country in this war. Delivering for gold the weapon to so-called allies (on this gold your economy also has go up). That you have told below -it would not be desirable to make comments, the bullcrap. It is called the pro-Russian propagation - to that you pump over since the childhood at your schools.

[FancaR]

Originally Posted by lonesoldier84

the only gripe i have about iraq is that all of the reasons they give are just the leaders lying thru their teeth. if they werent they wouldnt have stood idlt by during rwanda in the past, darfur now, and COUNTLESS other events in the past and even now today.

saddam isnt that bad when u stack him up against other noble and moral things the US troops could have been doing. oil reserves and a power base in the middle east are why its on full throttle.

+
If bad only Saddam which besides is already dead then who kills the American soldiers?
Means there are in Iraq people who dont want that strangers confirmed there the usages and ****n democracy, and it is a lot of them. And these people dig out every evening the automatic machine at themselves in a court yard and go to be at war with invaders

[FancaR]

Originally Posted by wrightme43

See Lone you have it all wrong.

The soldiers are not there to do noble things.
Soldiers job is to provide very concentrated destruction, and mayhem. The rest is just because they care, and the american people (well some of them) care.

Soldiers arenot to be used as a public works, thier main job is to actually walk onto a piece of ground, take it, hold it, and deny the enemy the use of it.

That is best accomplished after the mayhem, by building schools, helping children, speaking with parents, buying foods, building water supplies, building power generation and distribution.

See the TV and News media have twisted something all around here.

The Iraq vs. US, UK, AUS war was over in a few short weeks. The Baath party was defeated, the soldiers surrendered, no planes took off, no tanks rolled into battle, no anti aircraft batteries fired, there was no longer any organised Baath party resistance. It was done.

IRAN, and SYRIA, and Al Qaeda have been fighting a proxy terrorist action with the US, UK, AUS in Iraq. We know they are state sponsors of terrorism. Here is the ticket.
IRAQIS that love Iraq and Iraqs people dont BLOW UP THIER OWN CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why are they fighting?

A DEMOCRACY that works in IRAQ will destroy thier hold on power. A free market, with a representational government always does better than a dictatorship. They can not allow it. Its too late though. Unless our new Congress, Senate and President do something extremely stupid (oh say like Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs) the dictatorships, and relegious oppression that are normal in the middle east are finished. It will take time, but once people taste freedom, its all over but the crying. Iraq will have huge problems. One will be immigration. The best and brightest from all over the world come to America, England, Austraila, Germany, and other countries.

I can go on and on, but I am going to shut up and I hope you look at things in different way, and think on what a soldier has to do vs. what a soldier can do when he is also a free man.

One last thing. They are blowing up the policemen, the teachers, and the students. That is not the actions of war. That is terrorism.

You can name it somehow: Freedom, democracy, clearing and other beautiful words. But it remains to what is it: a capture of the power in another's country, as a matter of fact it is capture of the country. Bush, all time looks in the field-glass with the closed eyepieces.

He probably thought that it will have a new informal staff "Iraq". But he did not know that all people not to win, they can be exterminated only.

[lonesoldier84]

Originally Posted by wrightme43

See Lone you have it all wrong.

The soldiers are not there to do noble things.
Soldiers job is to provide very concentrated destruction, and mayhem. The rest is just because they care, and the american people (well some of them) care.

Soldiers arenot to be used as a public works, thier main job is to actually walk onto a piece of ground, take it, hold it, and deny the enemy the use of it.

That is best accomplished after the mayhem, by building schools, helping children, speaking with parents, buying foods, building water supplies, building power generation and distribution.

See the TV and News media have twisted something all around here.

The Iraq vs. US, UK, AUS war was over in a few short weeks. The Baath party was defeated, the soldiers surrendered, no planes took off, no tanks rolled into battle, no anti aircraft batteries fired, there was no longer any organised Baath party resistance. It was done.

IRAN, and SYRIA, and Al Qaeda have been fighting a proxy terrorist action with the US, UK, AUS in Iraq. We know they are state sponsors of terrorism. Here is the ticket.
IRAQIS that love Iraq and Iraqs people dont BLOW UP THIER OWN CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why are they fighting?

A DEMOCRACY that works in IRAQ will destroy thier hold on power. A free market, with a representational government always does better than a dictatorship. They can not allow it. Its too late though. Unless our new Congress, Senate and President do something extremely stupid (oh say like Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs) the dictatorships, and relegious oppression that are normal in the middle east are finished. It will take time, but once people taste freedom, its all over but the crying. Iraq will have huge problems. One will be immigration. The best and brightest from all over the world come to America, England, Austraila, Germany, and other countries.

I can go on and on, but I am going to shut up and I hope you look at things in different way, and think on what a soldier has to do vs. what a soldier can do when he is also a free man.

One last thing. They are blowing up the policemen, the teachers, and the students. That is not the actions of war. That is terrorism.

before i say anything i just want to be sure i understand you right (cuz too often these debates get sidetracked and we come to find out we are talking about different things)

1) the soldiers and the "war" did what they were supposed to: achieve very specific tactical goals in gaining control of the area

2) what has happened since then is not "the iraq war" but instead something larger than just iraq of which iraq is one piece of the puzzle.

what i am saying is that it would have been possible to achieve any and all worthwhile (from a US standpoint) objectives in many other ways....the least of which was invading iraq. and given that the invasion is long over now what i am saying is that the ongoing nonsense there is not helping anything and only serves to make it worse. it is the equivalent of dropping a jar of honey and having a big sticky mess.....then spending all day trying to clean it up with poisonous chemicals. sure in the short run of things you will see tangible benefits, but in the long run every last thing about "iraq" will have been for the worse.

what do i mean? since it is late here and im half asleep i will do this in point form so it makes a little more sense and is less jumbled up:

1) pre-war iraq is no danger to the US. i think we can all agree on this.

2) reason to go in, imo, was not self-defence or national security but more calculated goals ranging from creating friendly nation with oil reserves to placing the seed of an american "sphere of influence" for down the road in a historically anti-american region.

----point here is these are just reasons that countries do things....always have always will for similar selfish reasons, just dont lie about it *points at gov't*

3) post-war regarding iraq being a front on terrorism. it BECAME that. it never was that originally. if i walk into your house and start getting violent you will call your friends and family and the police and all of a sudden I find that your house is the "front on violence". people who would not have been involved have gotten involved due to my having instigated the entire sequence of events in the first place.

----point here is sometimes if you do things smarter you can avoid stirring up a hornet's nest. but because of the desire for a "sphere of influence" and friendly oil-nation....the hornet's nest was stirred up as a by-product of those desires. the US has a LONG history of going to great lengths to create spheres of influence. it has always worked to get its foot in the door with capitalism/freedom/democracy and then be influential in the region. that is just how it works. it is not a bad thing to be "free" I am not saying that the entire world as a democracy that WORKS would be a bad thing....but the fact remains that a western style democracy simply DOES NOT WORK in MANY places around the world. until you create social systems and structures and a society which will be able to function well in a democracy....there is no freedom. there is only the status quo under the guise of democracy.

------side note: did you know that while iran was ruled by the Shah before the ayatolla came into power the CIA was teaching iranian state police the torture methodology used by nazi's? iran was a police-state with secret police everywhere. people would be executed without trial for mere SUSPICION of speaking against the government. this is not "freedom".....but this is what is acceptable to US officials that want a base of influence in the middle east. to the little kid whose father was shot in the middle in the night by state police for talking against the Shah......dont cry....it is what needs to happen for there to be an "island of stability" in that otherwise "troubled" part of the world.....

YouTube - Carter toasting the shah of Iran

YouTube - Carter toasting the shah of Iran

oh wait did i say troubled? i meant simply not under the influence of the US. sorry little kid. my bad.

4) the US will eventually leave. public opinion at home will at some point become so sour due to the financial crisis and other things that the US will just completely wash its hands of the region as much as possible while trying to retain its influence as much as possible too. the outcome? freedom? nope. same old stuff that is day-to-day life down there. but they get coke and pepsi to drink while they watch their government run as it was always run.....not by the people OR for the people. even if it doesnt explode in a massive civil war and some stability remains due in large part to american efforts today....it is not the "freedom" and "democracy" americans and canadians and british citizens live with. it is the eastern way of government wearing a democratic mask.

India is considered the largest democracy in the world? is it? haha....nope!!! my family is from there and i can honestly tell you i know many people who have never gone to vote in their lives.....but every year their names appear on ballots for one of the big parties there. the governments are decided by mechanisms there that are not BY the people. the democratic process is simply a way to achieve legitmacy where there wouldnt otherwise be any without use of force.

I may have rambled on a bit there but i hope i made my point more or less apparent.

in a nutshell i just believe that if the Us wants the sphere of influence and all that go for it. if you can lay the foundation for a better quality of living for people in the process that is a great thing to do. just dont beat around the bush (no pun intended). say what ur after and git'r'dun. it has nothing to do with saddam being a bad guy. NOTHING. there were MANY reports on his atrocities before Gulf War I. they were ignored until oil-rich kuwait was invaded and a ridiculous percentage of world-oil reserves was under the control of saddam.....someone who was not pro-US. then at THAT point you get bush sr. saying what a bad guy saddam is and THEN he starts citing the massive reports he had just ignored a few months previously.

also the fact that iraq is a hotbed of terrorism is america's own fault. and if it is your fault you can fix it. where america goes terrorism will follow. if they shift the focus elsewhere the main front on terrorism will shift there. why not invade turkmenistan? i hear their ox-steaks are just delicious!!

ill stop there so i dont keep rambling.

[formula154]

Originally Posted by FancaR

The American telecommunication equipment has failed still before Russia has struck blow to the Georgian bases! It has died during blow Georgian volley fire on a Tskhinvali city of South Ossetia

I see that you know about history with Georgia from the TV too.
Ok, i repeat again:
Georgia the FIRST has attacked South Ossetia. And then Already Russian armies have crushed in ashes all Georgian Army on all Georgian territory. Russian Have stolen together with other trophies from Georgia five American cars \"hummer\". The most ridiculous that the Pentagon has demanded from Russia to compensate their cost )) lol

first read II World War history, and in general all history of the twentieth century (only not in the American textbook, and, for example in English or the French book) and after that make statements like these.

I did not hear for a long time such delirium. The United States were at war as soon as Hitler has attacked the Soviet union? The United States have entered the Second World War on December, 7th, 1941 when the military base in Pearl Harbour has been attacked by the Japanese planes. But Hitler attacked SU in 22.06.41. And were not on the first fronts of war, protecting only interests of the country in this war. Delivering for gold the weapon to so-called allies (on this gold your economy also has go up). That you have told below -it would not be desirable to make comments, the bullcrap. It is called the pro-Russian propagation - to that you pump over since the childhood at your schools.

((((((I see that you know about history with Georgia from the TV too.))))))

I see that you are just making stuff up. I haven't said anything at all about Georgia.

((((((I did not hear for a long time such delirium. The United States were at war as soon as Hitler has attacked the Soviet union? The United States have entered the Second World War on December, 7th, 1941 when the military base in Pearl Harbour has been attacked by the Japanese planes.)))))))

Delirium is right. Once again you are just making stuff up. I never said anything about the US being at war when Hitler attacked Russia. The fact that the US was not in the war when Hitler attacked Russia doesn't change the fact that Russia started WWII allied with Hitler and then switched sides after they were attacked. It doesn't change any of the other things I said about Russia enslaving the east Europen's or the nukes in Cuba or the SAM's in Viet Nam or Russia invading Afganistan. You don't mention any of those things. Instead you just make up things that I didn't say to attack me for.

[FancaR]

Originally Posted by formula154

((((((I see that you know about history with Georgia from the TV too.))))))

I see that you are just making stuff up. I haven't said anything at all about Georgia.

((((((I did not hear for a long time such delirium. The United States were at war as soon as Hitler has attacked the Soviet union? The United States have entered the Second World War on December, 7th, 1941 when the military base in Pearl Harbour has been attacked by the Japanese planes.)))))))

Delirium is right. Once again you are just making stuff up. I never said anything about the US being at war when Hitler attacked Russia. The fact that the US was not in the war when Hitler attacked Russia doesn't change the fact that Russia started WWII allied with Hitler and then switched sides after they were attacked. It doesn't change any of the other things I said about Russia enslaving the east Europen's or the nukes in Cuba or the SAM's in Viet Nam or Russia invading Afganistan. You don't mention any of those things. Instead you just make up things that I didn't say to attack me for.

ooh, may be i say that:

Originally Posted by formula154

FancaR says that USA helped Georgia when Russia attacked them.

Ok, i quote
1. "Russians enslaved Eastern Europe for 50 years"
The Soviet union has released east Europe from fascism.

After WWII there was nothing, including government. Nobody showed discontent there, people were grateful for the help. And then people there lived much better, than in the most Soviet union. So how this enslavement was expressed?

2. "They tried to put nuke's in Cuba"
Why tried? "they" put nuke's weapon in Cuba ) in 1962
And then СССP cleaned it from Cuba under the mutual arrangement with Washington after the United States have cleaned the Nuclear weapon from territory of Turkey (near from CCCP, such as Cube from USA )

"The question on necessity of rendering of the military help to Freedom Island had especially political character. It was the certificate of the help of the leader of camp of a socialism to the country aspiring to construction of a socialist society. However and from the point of view of modern understanding of that situation legitimacy of rendering assistance to the people to which by Washington it has been refused the right of an independent choice of a way of the development, quite обоснованна and is defensible. Such help does not contradict the United Nations Charter, it follows from spirit of this basic international document which urges the world community to render all help to member country of the United Nations to which aggression threatens or which has undergone to aggression. And after all Cuba was threatened at that time with direct aggression from outside the USA, authorised by the American Congress. It objectively pushed Soviet Union to rendering to Island of Freedom both economic, and the military help." (C)

3. Afganistan... hm... Afghanistan was a failure. Senseless destruction of the Soviet soldiers... you think, that a situation in Vietnam Better? Or American troops playes in baseball there?
same situation

after all
a. War it's bad. War - unpopular and unprofitable finally for all action. The clever person will manage to solve problems without war. And it should not fill sht in brains of the citizens any beautiful words about utopian democracy in the middle east, freedom bla bla bla...
b. People in Iraq shot in your soldiers not because they terrorists, all are easier. It is blood-feud. They have lost in this war of daughters, wifes, mothers and fathers. They revenge. And no your favourite words will stop them. They will be stopped only by a bullet. And no words will justify murder. not Soldiers are guilty , not those who kills them, those who has begun all it are guilty.

[formula154]

((((1) pre-war iraq is no danger to the US. i think we can all agree on this.))))

I don't agree. Hussain was a threat to the stability of the whole region. That is a danger to every one in the oil using world.

((((((3) post-war regarding iraq being a front on terrorism. it BECAME that. it never was that originally.))))))))))

Before that terrorist focused on Europe and America.Now they are focused on Iraq. If the Europen's had any sense they would thank us for taking the heat off their own countries.


(((((((also the fact that iraq is a hotbed of terrorism is america's own fault.))))

That is a lie!! The fact that people chose to blow up cars and trucks which kills women and children is not the fault of the US.The US went there after 5000 civilians were killed in America not before. It is very interesting to see that you have so much sympathy and compation for the poor terrorist who slaughter inocent women and children and so little for the American military, that dies trying to protect those women and children from being randomly slaughtered by those poor terrorist.

[formula154]

Originally Posted by FancaR

ooh, may be i say that:

Ok, i quote
1. \"Russians enslaved Eastern Europe for 50 years\"
The Soviet union has released east Europe from fascism.

After WWII there was nothing, including government. Nobody showed discontent there, people were grateful for the help. And then people there lived much better, than in the most Soviet union. So how this enslavement was expressed?

2. \"They tried to put nuke's in Cuba\"
Why tried? \"they\" put nuke's weapon in Cuba ) in 1962
And then СССP cleaned it from Cuba under the mutual arrangement with Washington after the United States have cleaned the Nuclear weapon from territory of Turkey (near from CCCP, such as Cube from USA )

\"The question on necessity of rendering of the military help to Freedom Island had especially political character. It was the certificate of the help of the leader of camp of a socialism to the country aspiring to construction of a socialist society. However and from the point of view of modern understanding of that situation legitimacy of rendering assistance to the people to which by Washington it has been refused the right of an independent choice of a way of the development, quite обоснованна and is defensible. Such help does not contradict the United Nations Charter, it follows from spirit of this basic international document which urges the world community to render all help to member country of the United Nations to which aggression threatens or which has undergone to aggression. And after all Cuba was threatened at that time with direct aggression from outside the USA, authorised by the American Congress. It objectively pushed Soviet Union to rendering to Island of Freedom both economic, and the military help.\" (C)

3. Afganistan... hm... Afghanistan was a failure. Senseless destruction of the Soviet soldiers... you think, that a situation in Vietnam Better? Or American troops playes in baseball there?
same situation

after all
a. War it's bad. War - unpopular and unprofitable finally for all action. The clever person will manage to solve problems without war. And it should not fill sht in brains of the citizens any beautiful words about utopian democracy in the middle east, freedom bla bla bla...
b. People in Iraq shot in your soldiers not because they terrorists, all are easier. It is blood-feud. They have lost in this war of daughters, wifes, mothers and fathers. They revenge. And no your favourite words will stop them. They will be stopped only by a bullet. And no words will justify murder. not Soldiers are guilty , not those who kills them, those who has begun all it are guilty.

You are an amusing fellow.

((((( Nobody showed discontent there, people were grateful for the help.)))))

Is that why they built a wall around Berlin, to keep all those gratefull Berliner's from excaping and shot the ones who went over the wall any way?

Is that why the Russians sent tanks into the Check Republic in 1968, because the Checks were so greatfull?

Forty years ago, in August 1968, Warsaw Pact armies, especially the Soviet Red Army invaded then Czechoslovakia in order to halt Prague Spring reforms. The occupation lasted for many years and the last Russian soldier left the county in 1990.Russian Tanks In The Czech Republic, 2008 The Czech Daily Word

((((And then people there lived much better, than in the most Soviet union. So how this enslavement was expressed?))))

The enslavement was expressed by risking being shot and having their countries invaded by Russian tanks in order to be free of Russian domination. Every eastern Europen country that has gotten free from russian domination has fled freely to the west and requested to be admitted to NATO. Georgia has requested admission to NATO for the same reason as the rest of the other countries, that is for protection from the Russians that you believe they are all so greatfull to for enslaving them. America puts up fences to keep peope out. Russia puts up fences to keep their greatfull subjects from excaping. You need to stop reading the party propaganda news papers and get in touch with a little reality.

[lonesoldier84]

Originally Posted by formula154

((((1) pre-war iraq is no danger to the US. i think we can all agree on this.))))

I don't agree. Hussain was a threat to the stability of the whole region. That is a danger to every one in the oil using world.

((((((3) post-war regarding iraq being a front on terrorism. it BECAME that. it never was that originally.))))))))))

Before that terrorist focused on Europe and America.Now they are focused on Iraq. If the Europen's had any sense they would thank us for taking the heat off their own countries.


(((((((also the fact that iraq is a hotbed of terrorism is america's own fault.))))

That is a lie!! The fact that people chose to blow up cars and trucks which kills women and children is not the fault of the US.The US went there after 5000 civilians were killed in America not before. It is very interesting to see that you have so much sympathy and compation for the poor terrorist who slaughter inocent women and children and so little for the American military, that dies trying to protect those women and children from being randomly slaughtered by those poor terrorist.

------------) I meant a threat to the US in terms of national security. you have proven my point that iraq was a threat not because of its plans of martial conquest but because of the sensitivity to the economy of the US due to saddam's proximity to massive oil reserves in kuwait and saudi as well as those under iraqi soil.

-------------) valid enough point. except in one regard (which serves to illustrate my point)....the US could essentially have decided where the front on the war on terror would be...it did not have to be iraq. it is iraq only as a side-effect of the desire and action of the US to try to set up a sphere of influence in the middle-east as well as to keep the oil flowing.

--------------) I should have underlined or caps locked the word "hotbed" so it more accurately represents what it was that i was trying to get across. iraq became a hotbed of terrorism due to the american involvement there. the rest of my point regarding that still stands.

[formula154]

Hussain is known to have possessed poison gas and he is known to have used it on men women children and dogs in his own country. He killed many thousands of people. He is known to have possessed and used scud missiles against Americans , Saudis and the Jews in the first war. Because he is known to have done those things the UN ordered inspections to insure that he didn't have any more. He defied the UN and refused to allow the inspection. He is the one who brought it down on himself. A history of possession and use and refusing to allow inspectors is guilty enough. He could have proven he didn't have weapons of mass destruction by letting the inspectors inspect. If he thought the US was using that as an excuse he could easily eliminated the excuse. Like I said there are a whole lot of people who did and said nothing at all who are now Monday morning quarter backing like they know something now (like the US lied about the whole thing) and they don't know any more now than they did then. If the US was lying about the weapons of mass destruction don't you think we could flown some of our own weapons of mass destruction in and found them? Don't you think we could have set up depots of poison gas and made it look like we found it?
The US looked and they said they didn't find any . If the US was lying about him having them then why would they invade and then say he didn't have any after all? That makes no sense at all.